ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana)

funding_check_precheck

FREE headline pre-check (100/day per wallet; pass caller). Returns assessability only - whether the submission is well-formed and the wallet can be read; no readiness verdict is returned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "caller": "<caller>",
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "challenge": "<challenge>"
    },
    "name": "funding_check_precheck"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caller`	Yes	Solana base58 wallet of the operator; keys the free allowance (100/day per wallet).
`challenge`	Yes	The payment challenge to check readiness against: network (solana or base), scheme, asset (mint or contract), amount_required (atomic units, string), facilitator when the client mode is facilitator.
`wallet_address`	Yes	The wallet whose readiness is checked (a Solana pubkey for network solana, an EVM address for network base). Never stored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the free allowance, the per-wallet limit, the need to pass caller, and the key limitation that only assessability is returned. It still does not describe error behavior or all side-effect/read-only details beyond what the schema says.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the free pre-check and immediately states the quota and the assessability-only limitation. Every phrase carries useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the nested challenge parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral context: free quota, caller keying, and assessability-only output. It would be stronger if it named the follow-up readiness-check tool or sketched the returned assessability shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter schema already documents caller, wallet_address, and challenge. The description adds only limited meaning by tying caller to the free allowance and mentioning wallet readability.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific pre-check function: it checks whether the submission is well-formed and the wallet can be read. It also clearly limits the result to assessability only, contrasting with a readiness verdict, though it does not name the sibling full-check tool explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The free quota and caller requirement imply this is a lightweight first step before a full check, and the description says no readiness verdict is returned. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus funding_check_check or other funding_check siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?